Police Union Boss: Quentin Tarantino Needs To Patch Up Cop-Citizen Relationships, Not Us

from the pointing-tasers,-guns-and-fingers dept

“I’m a human being with a conscience,” Tarantino said at the rally. “And when I see murder I cannot stand by. And I have to call the murdered the murdered and I have to call the murderers the murderers.”

Similar words have been spoken by other people as they've watched unarmed citizens gunned down by police officers. But when Tarantino says it, it apparently stings a bit more.

"It's no surprise that someone who makes a living glorifying crime and violence is a cop-hater, too," Lynch said in a statement. "The police officers that Quentin Tarantino calls 'murderers' aren't living in one of his depraved big screen fantasies -- they're risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to protect communities from real crime and mayhem."

"New Yorkers need to send a message to this purveyor of degeneracy that he has no business coming to our city to peddle his slanderous 'Cop Fiction,'" he added. "It's time for a boycott of Quentin Tarantino's films."

Oh, Pat. You often forget. Lynch's officers killed one man for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes ("real crime and mayhem") and shot another unarmed man in a stairwell (and delayed calling it in and seeking medical assistance) because a jumpy officer decided to patrol the building with his gun out. Not exactly "protecting communities," but whatever.

Los Angeles Police Protective League President Craig Lally said comments like Tarantino's encourage attacks on officers and said the union would support the call for a boycott of his films.

We fully support constructive dialogue about how police interact with citizens. But there is no place for inflammatory rhetoric that makes police officers even bigger targets than we already are," Lally said in a statement this week. "Film director Quentin Tarantino took irresponsibility to a new and completely unacceptable level this past weekend by referring to police as murderers during an anti-police march in New York."

First, Lally leans on the fake "War on Cops" narrative ("bigger targets than we already are…") and buttresses it by calling an anti-police brutality march an anti-police march. Lally lumps all of his officers together with this self-serving generalization. Aren't police officers the first to say the actions of bad police officers don't represent the whole of the force? A march targeting the actions of "bad apples" is portrayed by the union boss as being anti-tree. Fine. Have it your way, Lally. Just save us the #notallcops statements when a disgraced officer is indicted for their misconduct.

“All cops are not murderers,” Tarantino told The Times in his first public response to the controversy. “I never said that. I never even implied that.”

“What they’re doing is pretty obvious,” he said of his critics. “Instead of dealing with the incidents of police brutality that those people were bringing up, instead of examining the problem of police brutality in this country, better they single me out. And their message is very clear. It’s to shut me down. It’s to discredit me. It is to intimidate me. It is to shut my mouth, and even more important than that, it is to send a message out to any other prominent person that might feel the need to join that side of the argument.”

Tarantino's right. The unions would rather shut him up than admit any wrongdoing. It would rather prominent public figures remain silent or offer their deference than actually tackle law enforcement's myriad problems.

More and more people no longer trust the police as the time-honored public servants we once thought them to be. Because the police refuse to address the problems leading to the self-inflicted black eyes on their respective reputations, the only recourse they have is to attack those who are in positions of prominence that raise awareness of the problem.

Quentin Tarantino is the latest target. He refuses to back down, just as Thabo Sefolosha did. These are gentlemen with influence, money, and the national platform to bring more people to the table that will address police misconduct than have ever before. When those with greater resources than the average citizen decide to join the struggle against the culture of the “warrior cop,” it is highly feasible we will see a major shift in the public’s perception to a degree those of us who speak out against police misconduct never thought possible.

Because Tarantino has refused to back down, the unions seem a bit flustered. Jim Pasco, the executive director of the nation's largest police union (Fraternal Order of Police) said this to The Hollywood Reporter:

"Tarantino has made a good living out of violence and surprise," says Pasco. "Our offices make a living trying to stop violence, but surprise is not out of the question."

"Something is in the works, but the element of surprise is the most important element," says Pasco. "Something could happen anytime between now and [the premiere]. And a lot of it is going to be driven by Tarantino, who is nothing if not predictable.

If the organization in question were connected to the militia movement (by way of example) the outrage would be palpable. Is that a threat? Are they going to try to hurt Tarantino? He'd probably hire bodyguards (if he doesn't already have them). He might consider keeping a low profile for a while. There'd probably be a federal investigation to determine whether any actual violence was being planned.

Even though Tarantino appears to be done talking about this (after recognizing he wasn't dealing with a rational adversary), the Fraternal Order of Police isn't. For whatever reason, The Hollywood Reporter has allowed the national president of the threat-uttering Fraternal Order of Police to post an op-ed against the director on its website.

Chuck Canterbury calls Tarantino a "very strange man" who just doesn't understand the complexities of modern-day law enforcement. (It's only the amount of attention paid to police-involved-shootings that has changed, not the tactics, techniques or number of them.) He admits the boycott will probably have very little effect before going on to blame everything wrong with law enforcement on everyone else.

It's not police officers engaging in excessive force or racial profiling. It's the government -- a bigger, badder bad guy completely separated from the world of law enforcement… according to Canterbury.

Police officers are the only manifestation of government that some ever see -- and then only when something’s gone wrong. Tarantino didn’t need to whip up that crowd – they’re whipped up by the colossal failure of their elected officials.

His concluding paragraph, however, is so bad it's almost inadvertent parody.

So Tarantino race baits, and we boycott. No happy ending to this short drama -- rather than trying to help heal the wounds, Tarantino picks at the scabs. Rather than conciliatory, Tarantino is stoking the fires of hate and division that have made him a very wealthy man. I hate that this movie will make him still richer, and that perhaps this boycott and whatever else we may do will be to no avail; but, as long as there are befuddled demagogues like him bashing the police, there will be folks like me trying to get the truth out there.

According to Canterbury, it's the job of private citizens -- especially those whose voices might be heard -- to smooth over the widening gulf between the public and law enforcement. From where Canterbury sees it, the world of law enforcement is pristine and untroubled.

If complaints of profiling and brutality are coming from lower income areas in urban centers, the problem is the "colossal failure" of "elected officials," rather than the actions of the officers patrolling those areas. If a prominent American fails to show anything but devout support from law enforcement, that person is "race baiting" or "stoking the fires of hate," rather than simply pointing out truths that can no longer be ignored.

If Canterbury truly wants conciliation (and I have no reason to believe he does -- he wants concession, which is something very different even if it uses some of the same letters), then law enforcement has to lead the way, not Quentin Tarantino or any other member of the public. The public doesn't have much in the way of leverage, and it certainly doesn't have much it can actually concede. It's the entity coming from a position of power (a power that's abused far too often) that should be making the first moves towards conciliation. Expecting the public to grant you all the respect you feel you deserve (more than what's been earned) before any "healing" takes place only ensures the wound will never fully heal.

I don't see construction workers getting called murderers on a daily basis and getting a bad rap.I don't see firefighters getting called murderers on a daily basis and getting a bad rap.Hell, I don't even see the notary getting called murderers on a daily basis and getting a bad rap. All of those jobs are more dangerous than being a cop.

Re: Re:

Ya gotta give respect to get respect, a lesson the police need to learn

I used to respect the police. Now I will respect the police again when sites like photography is not a crime [ https://photographyisnotacrime.com ] no longer have a reason to exist. I don’t mean they are taken down for some reason, I mean when the reasons for their existence no longer exist.

Complaining

First they complain that living as a black person in USA is difficult, and when someone does something about it they complain.

When a dear officer pinned blacks to the ground and laid his hands around their throats to help them stop resisting, it were blacks medical condition that caused them to suffocate. Repeatedly their week adams apple gave in. Even though it wasn't the officers fault some complain.

As all blacks die, they wouldn't survive anyway!

It is just like when torture were documented in the US torture camps. The US government understood that this were bad and took swift action; they banned camera phones in the facilities.

Rights is just another word for unwelcome meddling. Be meek, stop resisting!

Re:

This just isn't true. I shouldn't need to mention that MOST violent crimes are committed by people who look like their victims. You knew that though, didn't you? Like I'm quite certain that you understand that calling out the people who betray the trust we put in them for the awesome responsibility which is keeping the peace, is NOT the same as calling out the average person for committing crime. Equating the two is akin to expecting people not to fight human trafficking without simultaneously fighting drug smuggling. Of course, if you cared to look you'd find countless examples of African Americans addressing crime, poverty, and hopelessness in our communities.

Re:

Kind of a strange name for a movement whose primary purpose is to address cop violence.

I mean, they don't even bring up the number one killer of black people: heart disease.

Tongue-in-cheek aside, black Americans commit violent crimes at eight times the national average (according to fbi stats), and the statistics on gun violence in America are actually really solid and reasonable in international comparisons - if you remove gang violence from the count. Same thing happens if you remove Detroit, D.C., New Orleans, and... I think it was Milwaukee.

Good for Tarantino. I support law enforcement as the next person (and not just when I need their assistance); but these two union leaders and those corrupt officers need to be removed from their position.

Good luck with your boycott. In my opinion, Taratino should advocate this lazy approach of a police boycott just to illustrate their overzealousness in disregard of free speech instead of repairing their relationship with the citizens.

It also appears that they have instigated and continually stoked the fires of this "us vs. them" narrative. This is another example of that

All Bets are off

I am a huge police supporter but I have to say there are more than just one or two bad apples in the bunch. Power is abused every day by police and they make mistakes, however, calling out the NYPD for the 2 examples of bad policing does not over shadow the hundreds if not thousands of encounters that are dangerous where they protect the people. Lets not go all myopic on this one. Its too coincidental that technology now available that wasn't 10 15 years ago is showing a side of the Blue Curtain no-one wants to admit exists. There are more good cops than bad...I truly believe this however I do believe there are too many bad ones and even more bad people in this world. We're all passing judgement when we should working on a solution. Cops see the worst of people day in and day out....at some point it must get to them. Kind of like running on a treadmill, you can run and run and work you ass off but never actually get anywhere. At what point do we expect the crime to cease because we caught all of the bad guys..... News flash the bad guys never stop coming and the power trip of cops will never end. Its a never ending circle.

Re: All Bets are off

Get back to me when bad cops are prosecuted rather than protected by the other cops, will you? And don't even get me started on all the cops seizing pot and money without filing charges and telling the non-accused "so sue me".

Re: All Bets are off

While you have good points, Crime has never been lower, and neither has violence directed at police. Why all the hyperbole by the Unions and mouthpieces then. There's no way around it, they're abusing their power and like all those in power, they don't like to be called on it. Digging heals in and doubling down will do anything but help fix the problem. How can anyone fix anything if they can't even be honest with themselves or anyone else.

Re:

More likely they are going to stop him hourly and take all his cash because he is up to no good.

As opposed to roughing him up without provocation, robbing him repeatedly at gunpoint is legal when wearing a badge. And maybe after a few times in succession, he'll get aggressive enough to justify roughing him up as well.

And there is always the "good faith exception" to fall back on: as long as a policeman claims he thought he was allowed to do anything, he is.

There is a reason there is a threshold of intelligence beyond which you are not allowed to apply for a job as police officer as you'd be an impediment for any operation relying on the good faith exception.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

While I do agree that Law enforcement officers are committing criminal acts, I think that Chuck Canterbury has a point when he points a finger at Governments for turning police forces into paramilitaries obsessed with nonexistent terrorist threats.

The public is having second thoughts about police violence. The public pays their wages for the job. When the FBI can tell you how many cops were shot or killed in the line of duty but have no idea how many civilians were, that says something that can't be covered up.

No amount of denial, no amount of media publicity, can white wash over that. It tells you what is important to the police and the public doesn't rate in that. This attitude has become so prevalent that near every week in the news is some story of the accidental shooting of the wrong civilians who were never involved in what was alleged. The police failed in due diligence of investigation. This results in people thinking they are protecting their home from burglars and invaders, which in essence the police have become with policing for profit.

The trouble now is that it is on the national conscience and hiding these actions are becoming increasingly harder.

The police officers that Quentin Tarantino calls 'murderers' aren't living in one of his depraved big screen fantasies -- they're risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to protect communities from real crime and mayhem.

Note that Lynch didn't actually claim that the cops weren't murderers. He's just saying that being a cop allows you to murder innocent people now and again as part of the job. Credit where credit's due, though: he didn't come right out and call it a "perk".

"Police officers are the only manifestation of government that some ever see -- and then only when something’s gone wrong."

I'm pretty sure most people will see public schools, and public school buses. Even for the ones that don't, they're almost certainly going to see tax forms. And of course there are elections, though I suppose he might not consider that a "manifestation of government".

So the only people whose sole encounter with a manifestation of government is the police are people who:

-Didn't go to public school and didn't live in an area where they could see school buses-Don't pay income taxes-Don't vote

Somehow I doubt that's a particularly large segment of the population.

did I hear that right?

I suppose it is only a matter of when until Mr. Tarantino is shot in the back five or six times while trying to evade arrest for selling loosies or acting suspiciously. I for one was relieved when seeing a law enforcement officer on scene, how times have changed. That just is not the case any longer. Guess it is time for me to go back where I came from. Give me liberty or put my sorry remains in the ground.

No surprise

It shouldn't surprise anyone that cops kill citizens. After all, when they're on the job, they have the means and opportunity to do so at all times. All they need is a motive, which helpful citizens provide by merely being annoying. This has always been the case with armed authorities. But it's only in the past few years that we've come to realize just how common it is, and that's only because of video evidence. Still, for every incident recorded on video, there are probably a hundred that go unnoticed.

What Quentin Tarantino did was a serious crime: he questioned the authority! (sarcasm)

"It's time for a boycott of Quentin Tarantino's films." Warrior cops love his violent movies. If the guy supported a boycott of all Hollywood movies, I would agree. (MPAA: Online Privacy Hurts Anti-Piracy Enforcement)